Criminal Law

Introduction

The public investigation initiated by Sir Robert Francis QC into the matter of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust gave the government the opportunity to enact the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that makes the people liable who willfully neglect the unwell under their supervision[1]. The people who are solely depending upon such care-worker or care-provider deserves the care and attention they need from such care worker or provider. It is their obligation to take utmost care of the patients depending upon their help. The Mental Health Act 1983 covers the offences relating to the wilful neglect or ill-treatment of the patients who are suffering from mental disorder[2]. While the Mental Capacity Act 2005 covers the ones who does not have the mental capacity to take care of themselves[3]. There was no statute that covered offences pertaining to the unwell who have full capacity until the initiative taken by Sir Robert Francis. This paper strives to determine the criminal liability of Connie for murdering Ozzie and Henry by way of willfully neglecting them.

Connie and Henry

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 was enacted to mend this loophole of the legal scenario of the country that covers offences relating to the ill people who are neglected by their care providers[4].The accusation of ‘ill-treatment’ and ‘wilful neglect’ needs to be proved by the party accusing the other. However, these phrases are not defined in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, thus they are lacking the definite meaning under law, yet there are established precedents that support the provision.

Wilful neglect

In the case of R v. Sheppard, the court was of the view that the word ‘wilful’ primarily means deliberate[5]. Thus, when someone deliberately ignores or avoids calling a doctor for a person who he knows require immediate medical attention, amounts to wilful neglect. Similarly, when a person does not provide medical assistance to a needy for he does not care about his well-being, can be considered a reckless and guilty of wilful neglect. In the case of R v Turbill and Broadway, applying the notion of wilful neglect as discussed in the Sheppard case, the court held that wilfully means purposefully or deliberately abstaining from caring or taking a necessary action towards a patient who need help.

Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, offences arise when a care provider wilfully neglects a patient are dealt under section 21 of the Act.

In the given case, Connie would be liable with criminal liability and would be held as an offender. Connie had the responsibility to provide care to Ozzie and Henry for they were severely affected by an infectious disease. Even though the patients were not thankful toward Connie’s care, she had a liability to make sure that she or at least some other person took care of them. However, she chose to ignore her duty completely after a point of time. She abandoned the patients who were unable to take care of themselves and did not even arrange for a substitute help who could have taken care of them. In addition, on returning she covered their motionless bodies with the bedding, believing them to be dead, which apparently was not true. Henry died of suffocation from the covering. This makes Connie liable for murdering Henry by breaching the provisions of Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015 and for wrongfully suffocating Henry to death.

 A care-provider includes a body corporate that provides health care to children and adult, or an individual who is under responsibility to care for a patient. Infringement of section 21 attracts penalty in the form of remedial and publicity order[6]. Section 21 covers for the offences that are effected by the care provider who ill-treats or wilfully neglects the patients who they are responsible to care for. The offence under section 21 has three essential elements:

• The ulterior offence that proves that the care provider has ill-treated or wilfully neglected the person dependent on him,
• The breach of duty which proves that the care provider has not carried out his duty to care, and
• The damage that is done to such patient due to such ulterior offence and the breach of duty.

            It needs to be proved to the court that the above-mentioned elements were present in the offence that has affected the patients, as otherwise it would not have not been the same.

Connie and Ozzie

            Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, offences arise when a care worker ill-treats a patient under section 20 of the Act.

Ill-treatment

            The court held in the case of R v. Newington that it is required to prove that:

• the offender had mens rea (guilty mind) while he was being reckless towards the patient or was ill-treating without giving it a thought that such ill-treatment might affect the patient; and
• Deliberate conduct of the offender, which damages or threaten to damage the health of the patient[7].

            The court rejects the submission of cases that attracts both provision of ill-treatment and wilful neglect in the same matter and suggests that both part of the offence would be taken into account in the same count as they are to be treated differently.

            This applies to the formal healthcare units, formal social care homes, individuals and organisations meant to provide for health and social care services serving the unwell adults and children. Section 20 of the Act holds it as an offence when an individual who is paid to provide care to another, ill-treats or wilfully neglects to do so[8]. This includes an individual who is paid to provide social care or health care to an adult or child (except certain health cares). It also includes the ones on the front line of the facility units who share the equal responsibility to make sure that the patients are receiving the care they need. Contravention of section 20 is a punishable offence, which makes the offender to serve an imprisonment up to 5 years or conviction up to 12 months.

            In this case, Connie’s negligence led to Ozzie’s death as she was in charge of taking care of Ozzie as a flat mate. If Connie had not left Ozzie unattended, the infection might not have taken a serious shape leading to death. At last when taken to the hospital, Ozzie died of incorrect medication and treatment prescribed there. This clearly makes Connie liable for the death of Ozzie who could have lived if she had not wilfully chosen to neglect her. In addition, the hospital could be made liable for the prescribing wrong medication and treatment to Ozzie, which violates section 20 of the act. This attracts the non-compliance of section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015, which makes Connie liable for wilfully neglecting Ozzie, and the hospital ill-treating Ozzie, resulting to death. Connie bears the responsibility of a care-provider and the hospital being the care worker under the Act as she was the one who shared a house with the patients and she had complete knowledge about the medical condition of the two of them. While the hospital had the responsibility of providing correct treatment to the patient. Thus, this makes both of them liable for their death and attracts criminal liability as well.             Recently, vulnerable adults were found dead at Purbeck Care Home in Wareham where the staff are being alleged to have ill-treated the patients[9].

Conclusion

            Therefore, by analyzing the given case study and the provisions of the concerned Statute, it can be concluded that Connie would be held responsible for murdering Henry and Ozzie under the criminal law and would be penalized either with a remedial or publicity order. 

Bibliography

‘Criminal Justice And Courts Act 2015’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/part/1/crossheading/offences-involving-illtreatment-or-wilful-neglect> accessed 7 November 2018

‘Ill-Treatment Or Wilful Neglect – Sections 20 To 25 Of The Criminal Justice And Courts Act 2015 | The Crown Prosecution Service’ (Cps.gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/ill-treatment-or-wilful-neglect-sections-20-25-criminal-justice-and-courts-act-2015> accessed 7 November 2018

Mandelstam, Michael. “Wilful neglect and health care.” The Journal of Adult Protection 16.6 (2014): 342-354.

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Mental Health Act 1983

R v Newington (91 Cr.App.R. 247, CA.)

R v Sheppard [1981] A.C. 394

R v Turbill and Broadway [2014] 1 Cr.App.R. 7

‘Report Highlights Care Home Abuse’ (BBC News, 2018) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-31417084> accessed 9 November 2018

[1] ‘Ill-Treatment Or Wilful Neglect – Sections 20 To 25 Of The Criminal Justice And Courts Act 2015 | The Crown Prosecution Service’ (Cps.gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/ill-treatment-or-wilful-neglect-sections-20-25-criminal-justice-and-courts-act-2015> accessed 7 November 2018.

[2] Mental Health Act 1983, s.127

[3] Mental Capacity Act 2005, s.44

[4] Mandelstam, Michael. “Wilful neglect and health care.” The Journal of Adult Protection 16.6 (2014): 342-354.

[5] R v Sheppard [1981] A.C. 394

[6] ‘Criminal Justice And Courts Act 2015’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/part/1/crossheading/offences-involving-illtreatment-or-wilful-neglect> accessed 7 November 2018.

[7] R v Newington (91 Cr.App.R. 247, CA.)

[8] ‘Criminal Justice And Courts Act 2015’ (Legislation.gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/part/1/crossheading/offences-involving-illtreatment-or-wilful-neglect> accessed 7 November 2018.

[9] ‘Report Highlights Care Home Abuse’ (BBC News, 2018) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-31417084> accessed 9 November 2018.